Why Refuge Will Not Work to Reduce Bt Resistance

The bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) with its toxins has proved
to be a valuable tool for insect pest control, particularly in organic
agriculture. The tool is useful only so long as insects have not
generally grown resistant to the insecticide. Resistance appears in
insect population when mutants of the insect population are selected by
the presence of Bt in the environment.

Genetic engineering may have
greatly accelerated the spread of Bt resistance by putting Bt genes into
crops such as potato, cotton and corn. The engineered varieties produce
Bt toxin in every cell of the plant throughout the growing season and
leave Bt containing residues in the soil. The continued and elevated
presence of Bt toxin in the crop environment is a powerful force for
rapid selection of Bt resistance among the insect pests. The United
States and large multinational companies promote spread of genetically
engineered crops and put forward a strategy called “refuge” which was
claimed to delay or prevent appearance of insect resistance in
genetically engineered crops.

What is refuge?
Refuge involves setting aside blocks of crops which
are not genetically engineered and sensitive to insect pests planted
among the large acreage of Bt toxin containing crop. The strategy
assumes that all the insect pests develop resistance to Bt toxin that
is genetically recessive. Recessive genes are genes that are not
expressed in the presence of a dominant gene (recollect that animals and
plants are diploid, having two sets of genes).

Genes may be recessive,
dominant, co-dominant both of the two alleles (genes of related
function located at a common chromosome address) are expressed for
,example the AB blood type, or semi-dominant when dominant genes are not
expressed in all members of a population (this situation is caused by
modifier genes at a separate chromosome location). An individual with
too recessive genes at the chromosome address for Bt tolerance can
safely eat Bt crops. Individual insects with two dominant genes or a
dominant and resistant gene expel their entrails through their anus
after browsing on Bt crop, and die. The theory is that if there is no
refuge then rare resistant forms will arise from mutant forms in the
insect population and will mate only with other survivors of the
exposure to Bt crop and soon establish resistant pest populations.

When
the refuge is present insect surviving Bt exposure don’t need to hunt
for rare Bt survivors for sex they just limp over to the refuge and
mate with insects bearing dominant genes. The off springs of such mating
will all be sensitive to Bt but will bear recessive genes for Bt
tolerance. The refuge delays the appearance of Bt resistant insect
populations.

Why is Bt tolerance recessive?
Bt produces crystalline toxins ,
these toxin crystals are present in the cells of the bacterium or
genetically engineered crop. When ingested by insect larvae the toxins
cause paralysis, cessation of feeding then death. The toxin produces
cation-selective channels in the cells of the insect gut leading to
influx of water and electrolytes leading to cell lysis (bursting)(1,2).
Recessive alleles of genes are usually associated with gene functions
that have been eliminated or inactivated.

The dominant alleles
usually produce proteins that function normally or they create a
protein with a new function. Recessive Bt genes have been associated
with changes in the insect membrane proteins to prevent binding of the
Bt toxin (3,4,5), or to inactivation of protease enzyme needed to
activate Bt toxin(6).It has been assumed that insect resistance is
recessive in formulating the refuge strategy because dominant resistance
will actually be promoted by a refuge.

Does insect resistance sometimes depend on dominant genes? Dominant
resistance genes will actually greatly enhance the spread of Bt
reistance in the refuge. Dominant inheritance of Bt resistance has been
observed in Colorado Potato beetle(7). That pest is a scourge of many
vegetable crops. In the absence of selection the resistance decreased
somewhat in five generations but remained constant for the following
twelve generations without selection. The diamond back moth was the
first major pest in which Bt resistance appeared in field crops. Bt
resistance was recessive and effected toxin binding to insect membrane
proteins in Hawaii and Pennsylvania but was not recessive and not
associated with binding in diamond backs from the Philippines(8).

How widespread is the use of Bt resistant crops?
Of the $8 billion
spent each year on pesticides worldwide, it is estimated $2.7 could be
replaced with Bt crops. The area planted in Bt resistant crops was
greater than 20 million acres for all crops during 1997(9).

Why are agriculture officials promoting refuge even though they are
aware that dominant mutations for Bt resistance can be expected to arise
and promote the rapid spread of resistance and loss of use for Bt? Many
such officials do not seem to be aware of the difference between
dominant and recessive genes and their implications for spread of
resistance. Others may wish to see a rapid return to chemical pesticides
and act to hasten decline of Bt applications. Others may be using a
strategy of planned obsolesce to coolly come forward with demands for
research grants and tax breaks to replace the ineffective Bt. Financial
advisors should answer to their clients for failing to alert them to
the consequences of dominant mutations in insect pests of Bt crops.

Can countries now considering approval of Bt crops, save Bt by
banning Bt crop field test and field applications? I think so!

What is the Hardy-Weinberg formula?
This question should be ignored
by those uncomfortable with genetics. The formula describing frequency
of alleles in a population in which alleles are not selected is:

p² + 2pq + q² = 1 ,where p+q=1,

p is the fraction of alleles in the entire
population that are dominant and

q is the fraction that are recessive.

When resistance, the point I am trying to make with the formula is that
in the refuge p and q can rise to point that they are nearly equal.
Thus even ignoring the catastrophe of dominant resistance appearing the
fraction of recessive alleles can reach a point that guarantees that
recessive diploids will ultimately predominate in the insect population.

The refuge doesn’t really provide a real solution to the appearance of
resistance and guaranties that the resistant genes will not be
eradicated.

Canadian Government Bureaucrats Reply to Comments on Canadian Biotechnology Strategy

Several months ago I submitted comments to a panel of government
bureaucrats who were reviewing the Canadian Biotechnology Strategy. The
strategy was administered by The Biotechnology Committee which consisted of
18 members of which a dozen were officers in biotechnology companies, the
remainder were from universities, law firms and banks. The committee mainly
functions as a lobby to obtain government grants and tax concessions for the
multinational chemical companies that are involved in biotechnology.

One
academic member was also a member of the Atomic Energy Control Board. My
comments to the bureaucrats of the panel of bureaucrats was to comment that
none of the bureaucrats making up the panel seemed to have expertise in
biotechnology (or anything but bureaucratic infighting survival for that
matter). My main comments were, however, to point out that the biotechnology
committee’s proposal to provide further tax concessions and grants to
biotechnology firms was a terrible idea. Those companies are already overly
rich.

On July 8 the panel’s reply was forwarded. The panel director replied ”
Thank you for your letter with the comments regarding the Canadian
Biotechnology Strategy Renewal process. I appreciate you taking the time
provide your views” there was more form letter then ”Your contribution to
the shared vision will assist us in ensuring that biotechnology helps to
improve our quality of life”.

Frankly , the bureaucrats didn’t seem the
least interested in discussing the lobbying of the biotechnology committee
and the absence of risk assessment in highly hazardous research such as the
virus problem in Pig to Human transplants. Or for that matter in the
numerous issues that have been brought forward in crop technology.

As a final note Canadian bureaucrats are notorious their gift at screwing
up important matters. The loss of the Canadian east coast fishery and the
near destruction of the west coast fish stock has mainly been the result of
evil bureaucrats who dominate spineless politicians. They stood by did
nothing to save the fish stocks and hampered or discharged those who
promoted rational action.

The bureaucrats seldom have expert knowledge in
the areas they administrate and they are paid grossly excessive salaries
for manipulating their niches. Those bureaucrats are very underhanded and
vindictive and prone to pressuring the employers of those with whom they
disagree.

USDA Goes Back To Drawing Board On Organic Rules

WASHINGTON, July 21 (Reuters) - After being bombarded with nearly 300,000
angry letters from organic farmers and health-conscious consumers, the U.S.
Agriculture Department said Wednesday it will try again this autumn to
create standards for organic products.

In May, the USDA withdrew a proposed rule that would have let food labeled
as ``organic'' contain human waste, irradiation or bio-engineered material.
A record 280,000 letters filled USDA's mailbox with complaints about the
plan from environmentalists, organic farmers, celebrities such as musician
Willie Nelson and the entire Vermont legislature.

Al Gore urges France's Jospin to allow US corn sales

By Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON, July 21 (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Al Gore made a
personal appeal on Tuesday to France's Prime Minister Lionel Jospin to
clear the way for Spain to resume imports of U.S. corn, an aide to the vice
president said.
"It's fair to say the prime minister definitely understood the importance
of this issue to American farmers" after his telephone conversation with
Gore, said Kay Casstevens, a legislative assistant to the vice president.
Although Jospin told Gore that he hadn't finished reviewing the issue, he
also said it was "his intention to make a decision in the near term,"
Casstevens said.

Time is of the essence because the European Union opened a tender on July 3
for Spain to import 600,000 tonnes of non-EU corn and that tender will open
remain only until August 6.

The United States sold more than $300 million dollars of corn annually to
Spain and Portugal in 1995 through 1997 under trade pacts, which allow the
two countries to import corn at much lower tariffs than the rest of EU.
But U.S. corn growers have made no sales to either destination this year
because of French delays in giving final EU approval to two varieties of
genetically-modified corn grown in the United States.

In the meantime, Argentine and Eastern European suppliers have stepped in
and made sales to Spain and Portugal that would normally be made by U.S.
exporters.

Gene Technology: Friend Or Foe?

By Christine Salins,
The Canberra Times July 22, 1998, Wednesday Edition

IF YOU weren't aware of it before, you are now: some of the food on our
table has been genetically engineered and it will not be long perhaps
only two years before much of our diet includes genetically engineered
food such as sugar and canola.

This fundamental shift in the way our
food is produced has happened with many Australians seemingly unaware of
it. To some, such as the Australian Food Council, which represents many
of Australia's food manufacturers and processors, it promises benefits to
consumers and the economy.

Others, such as Tomorrow's Food Today, a non-profit organisation which aims
to promote the food and hospitality industries in Australia, have called
for caution.

For some, the whole scenario is far too frightening to contemplate
scientists playing God.

UN Aid Agencies Slam Monsanto's Campaign

Aid agencies have united to condemn one of the biggest genetic engineering
companies for using the Third World to justify its products.

The company, Monsanto, has been seeking support from leading figures in
Africa and Asia for its claims that biotechnology can "feed the world".

An advertising campaign expected to start later this year says, "Let the
harvest begin". But furious aid agencies have criticised the promotion as
"misleading and manipulative". And African delegates to the United Nations'
recent session on plant genetic resources asked for support in fighting the
biotechnology companies.

In a joint statement, the UN delegates said: "We ... strongly object that
the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant
multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe,
environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial to us."

But despite their opposition, the Global Business Access lobbying company
in the United States has circulated a letter asking for signatories from
the Third World to support Monsanto's claim that we all share the "same
planet and the same needs".

It said: "Many of our needs have an ally in biotechnology and the promising
advances it offers for our future. We know that advances in biotechnology
must be tested and safe, but they should not be unduly delayed ... Slowing
its acceptance is a luxury our hungry world cannot afford."

However, many aid workers believe that recent innovations in farming have
promoted non-sustainable agriculture and done little to help the poorest
countries. Andrew Simms, of Christian Aid, said that people went hungry
because they did not have access to food, not because there was not enough
of it. Ethiopia, for example, was a net exporter of food during its famine
when the fighting prevented produce reaching those who needed it.

"Monsanto's claims of a tomorrow without hunger thanks to their genetically
engineered products are cruelly misleading," Mr Simms said.

The aid agencies are particularly worried by Monsanto, because recent
acquisitions have made it one of the world's most powerful agricultural
biotechnology companies. It has a stake in every stage of the process, from
patented genes to a global seed distribution network. Most significantly,
Monsanto paid $4bn (#2.4bn) for Delta and Pine Land, the company which
developed and patented "terminator technology", which genetically alters
seeds so they will not germinate if replanted.

Fears grew further last month when Monsanto announced a partnership with
the Grameen Bank, a microcredit scheme founded in Bangladesh which provides
credit to small businesses. Aid agencies fear farmers will be encouraged to
buy grain and herbicides they cannot afford.

Liz Hosken, of the Gaia Foundation which works to preserve biological and
cultural diversity, said the poorest countries were being targeted as
potentially profitable markets.

A #1m advertising campaign launched in Britain last month was designed to
persuade people that genetically modified crops were safe and a force for
good in the Third World.

Ms Hosken said: "The fear is if you say something often enough people think
it is true." She said the major issue for developing nations was food
security - having locally grown food locally available. But terminator
technology stopped farmers collecting seeds for use in the future while
encouraging them to buy in seeds and herbicides.

Laura Kelly, of ActionAid, said Monsanto's efforts to convince the public
that its technology would benefit farmers were "morally abhorrent".

http://www.newspage.com/NEWSPAGE
You can set Newspage to search the whole of the internet for you, so you
have a newspaper e-mail delivered everyday without having to search ,only
catch is $5 dollars a month mine is set with six choices 1. Biotech
Agriculture 2. Bio-tech Companies 3.Enviromental Regulations 4. Animal
testing 5. Bio-Tech Medicine etc. EXCELLENT SOURCE OF INFO

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/13/agent_orange/index.html CNN article
about the 300,000 Vietnamese children Chemical War Victims from the Vietnam
War. Monsanto as one of the makers of Agent Orange(Dioxin) have not paid out
compensation owing to the Constitutional Protection they received from the
US Government. I myself accessed this article when the picture of the
vietnamese child Thoa was included who suffers from skin cancers(I HAVE
COPIES) IT HAS BEEN REMOVED.at the same time as g/e soya arrived in
Europe. WHY?

Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) Web page up and running!

It took us a little while before we finally got down to it, but as of today
the WEB page of Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) is up and
running. For the moment we kept it simple and straightforward. You will
find all articles that appeared in Seedling during the past three years,
the most important briefings and ad hoc publications we have been
publishing during the last year or two, as well as the first two issues of
the new 'Biodiversity and Trade in conflict' series we are co-publishing.

While the site is still under construction (we're planning a latest news
section, links to other sites, and a section for Spanish and French materials,
amongst other things), we did not want to withhold it from you
any longer. Have a look and let us know what you think.

Organic farmer loses crop fight

By Mark Henderson,
London Times July 22 1998

A Leading organic farmer yesterday lost a Court of Appeal action to stop
trials of genetically modified sweetcorn on land next to his farm.

Three judges ruled unanimously that they had no authority to order the
destruction of the modified crop, despite finding that the Government had
disregarded seed trial laws when approving the experiment at the National
Institute of Agricultural Botany's site in Hood Barton, Devon. Lord Justice
Simon Brown, sitting with Lord Justice Judge and Lord Justice Buxton, found
that regulations requiring two preliminary tests before a modified seed was
approved for trial had been systematically broken since 1995. Although the
Hood Barton trial was thus illegal, it could not be destroyed as it posed
no significant risk to the environment, health or safety.

Guy Watson, who has for 15 years grown organic sweetcorn on his farm, had
argued that the altered crop could cross-pollinate with his and jeopardise
accreditation from the Soil Association.

UK: Public Funding For Cloning Resaerch Is Accelerating

By Dan Atkinson,
The Guardian (UK) Tuesday 21st July 98.

Public funding for cloning resaerch in Britain is accelerating despite the
continued heated debate over ethics.

According to new figures, the Department of Trade and Industry is speding
nearly £3m a year on cloning work, in order to keep Britain ahead in this
controversial field. Among the projects aided by the DTI are one 'to
establish techniques for producing genetically identical cattle', and
another researchung into the genetic manipulation of poultry'.

The lion's share of the DTI funding goes to the Roslin Institute near
Edinburgh, birth place of Dolly, the cloned sheep presented to the world in
early 1997. Roslin was given £2.3m in that year, rising to £2.5m in 97-98
and £2.6m in 98-98.

The figures were unearthed after a Parliamentary question by Lord Alton who
said these were 'staggering sums'.

The former Liberal MP David Alton said 'to commit huge amounts of public
money in advance of any ethical debate is intolerable'.

Business Foes Of Biotech Crops Seek More Rules

By Robert Steyer of the Post-Dispatch,
Saturday, July 18, 1998

They want more labeling of food and broader government monitoring.

An international collection of genetic engineering opponents gathered here
Friday near the epicenter of crop biotechnology, contending that the
emerging science benefits corporations rather than consumers and farmers.

"There's nothing wrong with the food we've got now," said Ricarda
Steinbrecher, a genetic scientist and member of the Women's Environmental
Network in Great Britain.

She was joined by critics from Ireland and Japan, and from St. Louis and
other U.S. cities, in calling for more labeling of food derived from
genetic engineering. They also want more government monitoring of crop
biotechnology.

"There's a tremendous amount of control in this one company (Monsanto Co.)
and others like it over our food supply," said Brian Tokar, one of the
speakers at the beginning of a three-day conference held at Fontbonne
College in Clayton.

"We need a powerful political movement to counter the claims of the
biotechnology industry," said Tokar, a professor of social ecology at
Goddard College in Plainfield, Vt., speaking to approximately 120
conference participants.

The conference is billed as the First Grassroots Gathering on
Biodevastation. Monsanto, the world leader in crop biotechnology, was the
speakers' prime target.

They said their concerns go beyond the research of one company. They are
worried about governments and politicians, too.

"We are at the crossroads of history with one road (leading to) Monsanto
and multinational corporations and industrial agriculture," said Ronnie
Cummins, campaign director of the Pure Food Campaign, one of the oldest
anti-biotechnology groups.

The other road, Cummins said, is toward organic farming and other
"sustainable agriculture" practices aimed at reducing the impact of
chemistry, biotechnology and heavy plowing on farmland.

Cummins and other speakers lamented that U.S. consumers haven't mounted the
kind of strong opposition to biotechnology that their European counterparts
have.

"If we don't organize a mass movement to go down the other road (of
sustainable agriculture), in 30 years the next generation is going to curse
us," Cummins said.

"Here, the discussion (of biotechnology) is practically non-existent,"
added Barbara Chicherio, a St. Louis area social worker and member of The
Greens/Green Party USA. "We need a clear-cut strategy to make sure
corporations don't control our food supply."

Court decision throws seed trials into chaos

By John Mason, Law Courts Correspondent,
Financial Times (London) July 22, 1998

The future for trials of genetically modified food seeds in the UK was
thrown into confusion yesterday after the Court of Appeal insisted the
government should enforce regulations it admitted breaching to allow the
tests to go ahead.

During a legal action brought by an organic farmer against trials of
genetically modified maize being carried out on adjacent land, the
government admitted breaking its own seed trials rules. The court rejected
Guy Watson's application for a judicial review of the decision allowing the
trial. But it described as "remarkable and regrettable" the agriculture
ministry's admission it had breached its own regulations.

The court's ruling, insisting the government enforce the regulations until
they are changed, appeared to throw the future of seed-trials into doubt.
Some 1,200 trials in the UK involving 500 plant varieties could be
affected, the court heard.

The effect on the bio-technology industry was unclear. The Soil
Association, the regulatory organisation for organic farming, which backed
Mr Watson's case, said the ruling could put back the introduction of
genetically modified crops by two years.

Canada: Food scientist silenced by FEDS

FEDS Shut Scientist Down

Biotechnology: Health Canada expert Shiv Chopra was set to speak about
food safety at a local community meeting until the government said no way

Adding to a climate of uncertainty around genetic engineering of foods, the
government scientist who was supposed to speak at a recent public meeting
on the issue was told by Health Canada to bow out or face the consequences.

Dr. Shiv Chopra was told July 13 that he couldn't speak at "What are We
Eating? An Introduction to Genetic Engineering and Your Food" scheduled for
that night at the YM-YWCA on Argyle.

Chopra was given written notice from his director, Dr. André Lachance, that
he could face "disciplinary action" if he appeared at the event sponsored
by Ottawa's Public Working Group on Food Concerns and the Rural Advancement
Foundation International.

Chopra's name had appeared among a list of speakers advertised around
Ottawa prior to the meeting. Lachance wrote that Chopra had not been given
permission to speak and could be placing himself in an awkward position if
he expressed opinions that differed from the department's.

And underneath what may appear as a run of the mill public service
regulation, lies a recent history of public dissent from Chopra and other
scientists at Health Canada who claim public safety is being jeopardized by
a department whose puppet strings are being controlled by large biotech
corporations and their tasty grants.

Ignoring scientists
That was Dr. Chopra's message when he appeared with fellow Health Canada
scientist Dr. Margaret Haydon on Canada AM, June 11. They stated that
Health Canada administrators were disregarding scientists' recommendations
to withhold approval for drugs, thus endangering public safety.

When asked why there was pressure to approve drugs so quickly, Chopra told
the reporter "Well, what do you think? Money. For multinational companies
that produce those things."

Chopra received an official reprimand from Health Canada for appearing on
Canada AM and is reticent to speak on the record now, for fear of further
consequences.

But scientist Dr. Richard Wolfson, one of the meeting's organizers, calls
the action by Health Canada a "gag order."

"He's not able to tell the public what he knows as an expert because Health
Canada says he can't speak in public except if he gets what he says cleared
ahead of time, so that they know that he's not saying anything outside of
the party line, " says Wolfson.

Robert Joubert, Health Canada's Director General of Human Resources, says
if the department had been approached for a speaker, they would have found
someone who could present information on genetic engineering in a
"knowledgeable, fair and unbiased fashion."

"It's Health Canada's decision who is going to speak for Health Canada We
are of the opinion that Dr. Chopra was not the best person to do that,"
says Joubert.

But at the July 13 meeting, Wolfson's announcement that Chopra had been
ordered not to appear, inflamed the anxiousness of a crowd already
concerned that information about what they and their families are eating is
being kept from them.

Sufficient testing
About 65 people attended the meeting organized by Wolfson and Carleton
Political Economy student Lucy Sharratt. The discussion centred on the
concern that the long term health effects of genetically altered plants
have not been tested sufficiently and that genetically altered foods are
not labeled in Canadian stores.

Wolfson says he contacted Chopra once the meeting was organized to ask him
to speak, because Chopra is knowledgeable about the testing regulations at
Health Canada and because "he cares more about public safety than
protecting his job.".

Chopra is one of the authors of a Health Canada report on the hazards of
the Bovine Growth Hormone intended for use as a milk production stimulant.

This local scenario is unfolding amid a growing international movement
against the genetic engineering of food, which has seen Prince Charles
speak publicly about how we should not attempt to play god by crossing
plant species.

Wolfson says he too is concerned that the long term effects of genetically
altered foods aren't known and aren't being tested. Labels, he says, at
least act as a warning to those who want to avoid the risk.

"When you label it, it means people can choose whether or not they want to
eat it," says Wolfson.

"Our main position is, it should be tested before it's put on the shelf and
it should be labeled so people can choose, otherwise, we're all, in effect
guinea pigs in an experiment and we're not even allowed to decide whether
we want to participate."

You may recall that on July 13, Dr. Shiv Chopra received a gag order from
his department preventing him from speaking at a public information session
that evening, on the topic of genetically engineered food.

On Friday July 24, Dr. Chopra filed a grievance with Health Canada, asking
that this restriction to his freedom of speech be removed. The grievance
also requested that the reprimand that he received earlier for expressing
his views in the media about the safety of products coming on the market be
removed.

Health Canada has 25 days to respond to this grievance. If they do not
respond in that time, the case may be taken to the federal courts.

A subcommittee of the Canadian Senate, which is investigating human safety
issues resulting from administration of rBGH to cows, recently requested a
copy of this report from Health Canada management. However, the Senate has
been refused a copy of this report. Under the circumstances, the Senate is
considering to subpoena the report in September upon their return from the
summer recess.

In the meantime, pressure has been applied to get rBGH approved in Canada,
ignoring internal recommendations by scientists in Health Canada not to
approve the hormone

The First "No GE Ingredients" Labeled Product In the US

A red ring around it says "PURE FOOD" at the top of the ring and at the
bottom. The label is at the bottom right of the front of the package. A
bear with a red kerchief and a cup appears to be pointing out the label.

On the back is a smaller version along with more information: "WHAT OUR
PURE FOOD SYMBOL MEANS TO YOU

This is our assurance to you that Bearitos Tortilla Chips do not contain
ingredients that have been genetically engineered. Although GEOs,
genetically engineered organisms, may have been part of our meals for the
past 20 years, we believe that those food products need to be labeled so
that consumers may make a choice. For a pamphlet about GEOs, please send a
SASE to: Hain GEO Info, P.O. Box 48006, Gardena, CA 90248

Incredible edibles

By Andrew Nikiforuk,
Canadian Business July 24, 1998,
Pg. 18

When more than 30 federally approved, genetically engineered goodies
--including bug-proof corn and even herbicide-resistant soybeans -- hit
Canadian supermarket shelves in record quantities this fall, you'd think
they would come with clear biotech labels. Choice, after all, is the
lifeblood of a free market, and corn and soybeans just happen to appear in
nearly 60% of all foodstuffs.

Well, think again. The Canadian government and most biotech firms
apparently fear choice as much as they do plain labels that read: "This
product may contain genetically modified organisms." Engineered crops,
they argue, taste the same as stuff that hasn't been tampered with. And
it's impossible, they contend, to segregate engineered from nonengineered
crops. So consumers be damned.

Fortunately, markets have their ways. In Europe, choice- conscious
retailers have simply taken labelling into their own hands, while an
increasing number of North Americans are opting for organic veggies. If
irradiated food can have an honest label -- the Radura -- then why not
transgenic munchies?

India: Biotech Firms Sow Seeds Of Discord

OTC 16.07.98

NEW DELHI, Jul 15 IPS - India's agriculture scientists are hunting for the
'Terminator,' a gene developed by U.S biotechnologists, which they say
threatens the livelihood of 400 million farmers and food security in this
country.

"We will not allow the Terminator to enter this country," Dr. R.S. Paroda,
director-general of the prestigious Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR) told IPS. But Dr. Paroda admitted that there is no reliable way of
ensuring that the gene which 'self-destructs' does not sneak past the
National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources which is charged with the job of
analyzing seed samples that enter the country.

Scientists here fear that if it infiltrates the porous quarantine system,
uncontrolled cross-pollination could kill off India's famed millennia-old
cereal varieties such as the long- grained, aromatic 'Basmati' rice,
already under attack by biopirates. Plant biotechnology project-director at
ICAR, Dr. R.P. Sharma said there is no telling what havoc Terminator can
wreak as yet. "We will have to estimate its dispersal by studying pollen
characteristics -- meanwhile this country should not accept this technology
or allow it past the borders," he said.

Developed and patented by the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) jointly
with one of the world's largest seed transnationals (TNCs), Delta and Pine
Land Inc., Terminator will ensure that farmers buy seed afresh rather than
set part of their harvest aside for sowing.

"The seeds may give a good crop in the first year of sowing but farmers who
try to store crops for replanting will find that they are sterile -- and
this will make them completely dependent on seed companies," Sharma said.

Such a development spells doom for Indian farmers who mostly cultivate
small plots of land averaging one acre in size. Also the thousands of crop
varieties they have developed with their genius will give way to
monocultures promoted by U.S seed giants.

Geneticists are using patents to own the mark they make

The blueprint for the future of food and medicine is taking shape at the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where rights have been claimed to more
than 1,800 genes and a veritable zoo of genetically altered animals: 85
mice, three rats, three rabbits, a sheep, a nematode, a bird, a fish, a
pig, a guinea pig, an abalone and a cow.

Few scientific discoveries have provoked debate as deep as the
soul-searching over patenting the genetic basis of life and the forms that
emerge from genetic combinations.

Scientists cast their genetic creations as the latest example of medical
and agricultural enterprise that Congress intended to encourage when it
created the patent office in 1802. Their detractors argue that shattering
nature's genetic barriers is so profoundly different from previous
inventions that it calls for rethinking the rights a patent conveys.

The latest flap is over an application filed in December to patent a
process for making chimeras that are part human, part animal. It was filed
by biotechnology critics in an attempt to block the technology or to force
changes in patent procedures.

The chimera application crystallizes many of the conflicts embedded in the
patent debate. First, it requests a patent for something that blurs the
lines between species. And in doing so, it challenges the very notion of
patenting life forms.

The patent office, which has yet to rule on the application, responded in
April with an advisory saying that it can't issue a patent for an invention
"of incredible or specious utility," or one deemed to flout the "good
morals" of society.

"There are people who want to try to sensationalize this work and give the
impression that we are about to commercialize technologies that most people
would find very frightening: That we are going to see monsters walking
around on the streets of Minneapolis that will be owned by some giant
corporation like something out of a science fiction story, the Frankenstein
kind of a thing," Bruce Lehman, commissioner of patents and trademarks,
said in an interview this month.

Whether or not the application is found to be valid, it does push the
question of what constitutes a modern-day monster and what meets a "good
morals" standard.

Inventing animals

The patent office already has approved animal inventions with at least
minuscule human parts -- for example, mice given genes related to human
diseases for research purposes. Now, researchers in Minnesota and elsewhere
talk routinely about plans to tailor pigs, sheep and cows to make organs
and medicine for humans.

As the notion of intermingling species has become more acceptable, the
debate has moved beyond Frankenstein fears. Animal-rights advocates, for
example, argue that it's immoral to create and patent genetically diseased
animals for research.

Another argument revolves around the right to hold a patent on the
fundamental elements of life. It's one thing to learn that scientists have
identified genes that play a role in breast cancer and may use that
information to save lives. It's quite another to see companies battling in
court over the right to commercially exploit the genes.

Under U.S. law, once genes with known functions are isolated, they can be
patented if they have potential applications such as treating diseases or
creating products. A patent holder can exclude others from using the
invention for 20 years unless permission is granted, often in exchange for
royalties.

Speculators aren't supposed to be able to stake patent claims on genes
without a specific purpose, but the intended application can be theoretical
rather than immediately practical. And if a different use arises in the
future, the patent covers that as well.

University of Minnesota bioethicist Jeffrey Kahn offers this advice for
sorting through the debate: The patent system was intended to encourage
invention that serves the common good. So the basic questions are whether
the inventions of biotechnology will improve life and at what cost. And the
next question is whether granting patents truly encourages invention or
instead empowers a few patent holders to block others from researching
potentially beneficial technology.

While biotechnology patenting has moved apace in the United States during
the 1990s, the European Parliament did not allow such patenting until May.
And rules in Europe are more restrictive than those in the United States.

The intensity of Europe's debate was reflected in a recent article that
Prince Charles wrote for London's Daily Telegraph. He said genetic
engineering "takes mankind into realms that belong to God and God alone."
He expressed concern over potential unknown consequences for human health
and the environment: "If something does go badly wrong, we will be faced
with the problem of clearing up a kind of pollution which is
self-perpetuating. I am not convinced that anyone has the first idea of how
this could be done."

Genetic Engineering on Trees

July 25, 1998 Pg. 77
The Economist

Gone is the forest primeval Trees are the next target of genetic
engineers IF YOU go down to the woods today, you could be in for a big
surprise. But not because of a mere teddy bears' picnic. Instead, you may
meet high-tech trees genetically modified to speed their growth or
improve the quality of their wood that are at last coming out of
greenhouses and into forests around the world. Genetically -engineered
food crops such as soya have become increasingly common, albeit
controversial, over the past ten years. But genetic tweaking of trees
has lagged behind.

Part of the reason is technical. Understanding, and then altering, the
genes of a big pine tree is more complex than creating a better tomato.
While tomatoes sprout happily, and rapidly, in the laboratory, growing a
whole tree from a single, genetically altered cell in a test tube is a
tricky process that takes years, not months. Moreover, little is known
about tree genes. Some trees, such as pine, have a lot of DNAxroughly ten
times as much as humans. And, whereas the Human Genome Project is more than
half-way through its task of isolating and sequencing the estimated 100,000
genes in human cells, similar efforts to analyse tree genes are still just
saplings.

But genetic engineering of trees has been slow to grow for another
reason: money. Ron Sederoff, director of the Forest Biotechnology group
at North Carolina State University and head of a research consortium
supported by a dozen firms interested in genetically -engineered trees,
points out that, so long as logging companies still had plenty of rich
pickings in the world's forests, investing in expensive technology to
improve tree quality was a luxury. Now the rich pickings are gone.
International demand for wood has grown 36% in the past 25 years and is now
a $400 billion business, according to a report on the world's forests
published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation last
year. This puts pressure on commercial tree plantations; and there are
fewer virgin forests left to cut. Hence a new enthusiasm for manipulating
the genetics of trees, especially of commercially valuable species.

Given the large number of tree genes and the little that is known about
them, tree engineers are starting where other gene wizards have started
before them: with a search for genetic "markers". The first step is to
isolate DNA from trees with desirable properties such as insect resistance.
The next step is to find stretches of DNAxnot necessarily in the genes
themselves, since this is such a time-consuming process, but in
surrogatesxthat show the presence of a particular gene. Then, when you mate
two trees with different desirable properties, it is simple to check which
offspring contain them all by looking for the genetic markers.

One firm putting this to use is ForBio, based in Brisbane, Australia. So
far, its scientists have identified 600 genetic markers in ten species of
eucalyptus, acacia and melaleuca, a temperate tree prized for its oils. The
company then breeds trees together to combine such things as salt tolerance
and wood quality in a single plant. ForBio hopes to have 10m of its
enhanced trees growing around the world within two years; it already has
fast-growing eucalyptus in Indonesian plantations and hopes to get approval
to plant its first crop of salt- tolerant trees in Australia's Murray
Darling Basin, once rich agricultural land that is "salting up" due to a
rising water table.

Henry Amerson, also at North Carolina State University, is using genetic
markers too, this time to breed fungal resistance into southern pines such
as the loblolly. Billions of these are grown across America for pulp and
paper, and outbreaks of disease are expensive. One common nasty is fusiform
rust disease, which causes branches to break in the wind; but not all
individual trees are susceptible. Dr Amerson's group has found markers that
distinguish fungus-resistant stock from disease- prone trees. Using
traditional breeding techniques, they are introducing the resistance genes
into pines on test sites in America.

The main advantage of using genetic markers is that it speeds up
old-fashioned breeding methods, because you no longer have to wait for the
tree to grow up to see if it has the desired traits. But it is not really
genetic engineering; it is more a sophisticated form of selective breeding.
Now, however, interest in genetic tinkering is also gaining ground. To
this end, Dr Amerson and his colleagues are taking part in the Pine Gene
Discovery Project, an initiative to identify and sequence the 50,000-odd
genes in the pine tree's genome. (Trees generally have fewer genes, but
more DNA than humans.) Knowing which gene does what should make it easier
to know what to alter. Enough is already known for some fiddling to
start. Royal Dutch/Shell has genetically engineered eucalyptus to produce
a different type of lignin, the molecular glue that holds wood fibres
together. The oil multinational hopes its improved trees, now growing in
test sites in Uruguay and Chile, will prove a boon to the pulp and paper
industry. Removing lignin is one of the messiest bits of pulp production.

At the Canadian Forest Service's Laurentian Forestry Centre in Sainte
Foy, in Quebec, Armand Seguin and his colleagues are trying genetic
engineering to improve pest resistance in trees. Dr Seguin is introducing
modified insect genes into white pine cells in the laboratory. The genes in
question make anti- microbial proteinsxand so far, the cells seem to be
shielded from some natural fungal predators. The Quebec group is now
waiting to see if the fully grown trees will be equally protected.

As with the introduction of any exotic organism into a new environment,
there are worries about the impact on the rest of the ecosystem. Some
conservationists are cautiously enthusiastic about the new trees, reckoning
that it is better that they be cultivated than that the last stands of
virgin forest be felled. Moreover, companies such as ForBio are working
on ways to ensure that their new trees will be sterile and unable to spread
their new genes to the natives. Yet there have been huge arguments,
notably between America and the European Union, over other genetically
modified organisms. So the Laurentian Forestry Centre is also developing
methods to test for the transfer of DNA from modified trees into other
species, especially to useful bacteria and fungi in the surrounding soil.
Trees are in the ground for years, rather than farm crops' months. That
makes it more vital for local residents to keep to themselves. But teddies
are less likely to protest about trees than Europeans are about
genetically modified food.

Growth of Organic Food Industry

Organic-food prices look set to tumble as supplies increase and farmers
queue to join the government scheme to turn green.

The price of organic food looks set to drop as the number of farmers
applying to go green hits record levels.

Organic food is finally becoming big business, after 50 years in the
crank club. Nearly 140 applications have been received so far this year by
the Ministry of Agriculture from farmers wanting to join the Organic Aid
Scheme. There are 445 organic farmers in England and Wales.

Prices for organic food have been higher than for non-organic food
partly because demand far outstrips supply, according to Dr Younie, the
organic specialist at the Scottish Agricultural College.

Production costs and the expense of converting to organic farming will
play a less significant part in the pricing as more produce comes on the
market. He reports a fourfold increase in the number of inquiries from
Scottish farmers wanting to go organic. "As the supply increases prices are
bound to come down," he says.

The rapidly growing demand for organically grown fruit, veg, meat and
dairy products has been noticed by supermarkets.